PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 42685022

Data distribution impacts the performance and generalisability of contrastive learning-based foundation models of electrocardiograms.

Abstract

Contrastive learning is a widely adopted self-supervised pretraining strategy, yet its dependence on cohort composition remains underexplored. We present Contrasting by Augmented Patient Electrocardiograms (CAPE) foundation model and pretrain on four cohorts (n = 5,203,269), from diverse populations across three continents (North America, South America, Asia). We systematically assess how cohort demographics, health status, and population diversity influence the downstream performance for prediction tasks also including two additional cohorts from another continent (Europe). We find that downstream performance depends on the distributional properties of the pretraining cohort, including demographics and health status. Moreover, while pretraining with a multi-centre, demographically diverse cohort improves in-distribution accuracy, it reduces out-of-distribution (OOD) generalisation of our contrastive approach by encoding cohort-specific artifacts. To address this, we propose the In-Distribution Batch (IDB) strategy, which preserves intra-cohort consistency during pretraining, discourages learning of spurious cohort-specific features, and instead promotes clinically meaningful variability within cohorts. This leads to improved out-of-distribution robustness, with gains of 9-40% in downstream label prediction performance. This work provides insights into pretraining strategies for more clinically deployable and generalisable foundation models.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gul Rukh Khattak, Konstantinos Patlatzoglou, Joseph Barker, Libor Pastika, Boroumand Zeidaabadi, Aidan R Birdi, Jiayu Huo, Ahmed El-Medany, Hesham Aggour, Yixiu Liang, Antonio H Ribeiro, Jeffrey Annis, Antonio Luiz Pinho Ribeiro, Junbo Ge, Daniel B Kramer, Jonathan W Waks, Evan Brittain, Nicholas Peters, Fu Siong Ng, Arunashis Sau. 2026-09-02. Data distribution impacts the performance and generalisability of contrastive learning-based foundation models of electrocardiograms.. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001623

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article